Sunday, March 25, 2012

Here’s an Incredible Idea For How Memory Works

Do you remember Avogadro’s number, the acceleration due to gravity, pi or a Shakespearean Sonnet? The problem is that how the brain could store information long-term has been something of a mystery. But now researchers have developed a very interesting idea of how the brain’s neurons could store information using, believe it or not, a binary encoding scheme based on phosphorylation:

Memory is attributed to strengthened synaptic connections among particular brain neurons, yet synaptic membrane components are transient, whereas memories can endure. This suggests synaptic information is encoded and ‘hard-wired’ elsewhere, e.g. at molecular levels within the post-synaptic neuron. In long-term potentiation (LTP), a cellular and molecular model for memory, post-synaptic calcium ion (Ca2+) flux activates the hexagonal Ca2+-calmodulin dependent kinase II (CaMKII), a dodacameric holoenzyme containing 2 hexagonal sets of 6 kinase domains. Each kinase domain can either phosphorylate substrate proteins, or not (i.e. encoding one bit). Thus each set of extended CaMKII kinases can potentially encode synaptic Ca2+ information via phosphorylation as ordered arrays of binary ‘bits’. Candidate sites for CaMKII phosphorylation-encoded molecular memory include microtubules (MTs), cylindrical organelles whose surfaces represent a regular lattice with a pattern of hexagonal polymers of the protein tubulin. Using molecular mechanics modeling and electrostatic profiling, we find that spatial dimensions and geometry of the extended CaMKII kinase domains precisely match those of MT hexagonal lattices. This suggests sets of six CaMKII kinase domains phosphorylate hexagonal MT lattice neighborhoods collectively, e.g. conveying synaptic information as ordered arrays of six “bits”, and thus “bytes”, with 64 to 5,281 possible bit states per CaMKII-MT byte. Signaling and encoding in MTs and other cytoskeletal structures offer rapid, robust solid-state information processing which may reflect a general code for MT-based memory and information processing within neurons and other eukaryotic cells.

of related note, The following is a interesting point to note in view of the brain having more switches that the internet,,,

Appraising the brain's energy budget:Excerpt: In the average adult human, the brain represents about 2% of the body weight. Remarkably, despite its relatively small size, the brain accounts for about 20% of the oxygen and, hence, calories consumed by the body. This high rate of metabolism is remarkably constant despite widely varying mental and motoric activity. The metabolic activity of the brain is remarkably constant over time.http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237.full

THE EFFECT OF MENTAL ARITHMETIC ON CEREBRAL CIRCULATION AND METABOLISMExcerpt: Although Lennox considered the performance of mental arithmetic as "mental work", it is not immediately apparent what the nature of that work in the physical sense might be if, indeed, there be any. If no work or energy transformation is involved in the process of thought, then it is not surprising that cerebral oxygen consumption is unaltered during mental arithmetic.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC438861/pdf/jcinvest00624-0127.pdf

Notes:

Human Brain Has More Switches Than All Computers on Earth - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/5516446/

Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like amicroprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internetconnections on Earth.http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html

It's remarkable how much more sophisticated life is than those who propagated Darwin's argument-from-ignorance throughout the 19th and 20th centuries realized. The sophistication continues to grow by leaps-and-bounds, all while nature's creative ineptitude remains constant.

As for Ritchie's sissified rant above: Darwinists frequently use the "bad design" argument against I.D., where they use an alleged lack of complexity/sophistication as evidence for an absence of intelligent design.

But, here's the rub...

If the lack of sophistication is evidence for the absence of of intelligent design, then an abundance of sophistication is evidence for the presence of intelligent design.

Make up your minds, Liars For Darwin. Either quality of design can be be used as evidence for or against I.D., or it cannot.

If it's the former, then sophistication is, in fact, evidence for I.D.

If it's the latter, then "bad design" is cannot evidence against I.D.

My opinion is that sophistication is evidence for -- and bad design evidence against -- I.D. It's clear that the former greatly outweighs the latter, thus, the quality of the design found in life overwhelmingly sides with I.D.

How about the designer giving humans different types of blood (A,B, AB,O) with different Rh factors so that if you accidentally marry someone of an incompatible type and have a family, your children die.

Lots of things designed by humans are poor designs. There is my car. There is the Tacoma/Narrows bridge. Citicorp Building was found to have a critical design flaw. It was corrected before it collapsed. I could site more examples, but I think you get the idea. I could even say that this post is poorly designed. Poor design doesn't mean no designer.

Lots of things designed by humans are poor designs. There is my car. There is the Tacoma/Narrows bridge. Citicorp Building was found to have a critical design flaw. It was corrected before it collapsed. I could site more examples, but I think you get the idea. I could even say that this post is poorly designed. Poor design doesn't mean no designer.

So you agree that poor design means an incompetent designer?

That pretty much rules out the claimed Omnipotent Infallible Christian God as the Designer then, right?

He who? Anyhow. Rh conflicts could be a method of population control. Humans build such devices into our constructs. In terms of propagation, we certainly further the ability through various contraceptives and abortion techniques. Marriage does not necessarily require progeny either.

Unless, of course the designer had a reason for designing something we see as poor. Sometimes it turns out to be a good design. Or the designer had a reason, like planned obsolescence. Or it is a punishment for sin. Or it is a test. Or it instills fear in us which could motivate us to turn to God. Or perfection includes the ability to be imperfect. So if God is perfect, then that puts a limitation on Him. Lots of people a lot smarter than me have discussed these issues, starting with the Book of Job.

I understand that the error was a miscalculation of wind shear, combined with a decision to use bolts instead of welding. I don't konow how to classify that error. And please don't get me started on my car. Poor gas milage, to start with.

Rh conflicts could be a method of population control. Humans build such devices into our constructs.

Wow. So the Designer came up with a way to cause unsuspecting parents the joy of watching their children suffer or die as a form of birth control. That explains why He designed Ravine encephalopathy that kills babies by destroying their brains too. Still, you'd think the Designer of the whole universe could come up with something a little less macabre. I guess having little children mauled to death by bears and drowning them in a Great Flood got a little boring.

In terms of propagation, we certainly further the ability through various contraceptives and abortion techniques. Marriage does not necessarily require progeny either

There are a couple of million Roman Catholics who would fight you tooth and nail over that. If they can take time from their busy schedule bombing Planned Parenthood clinics and fighting same-sex marriages that is.

Hmm. Sounds like your view of a designer may closely align with his – perhaps with overtones of Islam, hints of Akkad and a pinch of oregano. I do doubt that it is joyful for a parent to watch their child suffer.

We mirror the macabre in our own methods. Blood types and R. Encephalopathy occur regardless of one's affinity. Plopping a newborn in a dumpster and leaving it for dead is something else entirely. If you're upset over natural causes, are you just as upset over unnatural causes?

Hmm. Sounds like your view of a designer may closely align with his – perhaps with overtones of Islam, hints of Akkad and a pinch of oregano. I do doubt that it is joyful for a parent to watch their child suffer.

You're the guy who suggested your Designer kills children as a form of population control.

We mirror the macabre in our own methods. Blood types and R. Encephalopathy occur regardless of one's affinity.

Your Designer is an equal opportunity murderer. Got it.

If you're upset over natural causes, are you just as upset over unnatural causes?

But you just told us your Designer kills children on purpose. That's not a natural cause.

"Your designer," as in mine? You may want to check the text again to see who capitalizes what. You seem more interested in talking about some designer than you are "good" or "bad" examples of design. What constitutes a good design for you?

Also, which "couple of million roman catholics" are the domestic terrorists? As that religion is widespread, I would like to be aware.

"Your designer," as in mine? You may want to check the text again to see who capitalizes what.

The Designer you say deliberately kills children as a form of population control. You brought it up so I assumed it was yours. I don't know of any actual Designer.

What constitutes a good design for you?

There are many things that have been highly optimized by millions of years of selection pressures - the streamlined shape of certain fish for high speed swimming as an example. I don't know of anything in the biological world that was consciously designed.

My comment was in the context of your initial statement regarding your designer's use of blood types and Rh factors. My initial question to Ritchie was, "What do you feel are good or bad designs?" You invoked a designer.

What constitutes a good design for you outside of biological structures?

You've hinted at portions of industrial design, but not much else. Your original statement about preconception and pre-design specification would seem to hint at a predetermined need or desire for which "design" is used as a method of solution.

You've hinted at portions of industrial design, but not much else. Your original statement about preconception and pre-design specification would seem to hint at a predetermined need or desire for which "design" is used as a method of solution.

You asked a lot of rather silly questions that you could have easily found answers for yourself, and I have patiently answered them. If there is a point to this time wasting goat rope, please state it.

So you assume a conversation regarding design must entail a supposed antithesis to what you believe which you visit upon others. Childish indeed! You're very similar in approach to information as you perceive others on this blog to be.

Feel free to provide the details as to which few million roman catholics are terrorists.

So you assume a conversation regarding design must entail a supposed antithesis to what you believe which you visit upon others. Childish indeed! You're very similar in approach to information as you perceive others on this blog to be.

It started off as a nice conversation. You answered the questions you were comfortable with and avoided the ones you were not. When asked again you became acerbic and assumptive and entered into a pattern of abusive language in order to hide from your ignorance of the subject matter.

Yeah and your reading comprehension sucks. Did you even read the first sentence? You say ignorant things and can't back 'em up. You complain about others doing the same thing. Stop being a pansy. You're not helping the rest of us make any progress.

And again with it! Dense much? I'm a naturalist. What I'm saying is that your self-absorbed rants make the rest of us look as ridiculous as you. Science isn't some sort of chest beating game where you show everyone how much you're compensating for low self esteem. At least some of us can put a cohesive thought together.

You haven't answered his question either. Should I slime your rock or mine?

Yes I did answer his questions, up to the point it became obvious he was only interested in playing childish semantic games and refused to provide his own answers. You won't provide any answers either because you're lying IDiot troll. Now go bugger off.

“...he was only interested in playing childish semantic games and refused to provide his own answers.”

That is an interesting take. It is good to know that, in your mind, cowardice is equitable to not commenting on a blog that isn't one's own in a compensatory and compulsory manner because other responsibilities take precedence.

“T; ...he was only interested in playing childish semantic games and refused to provide his own answers.”

That is an interesting take. It is good to know that, in your mind, cowardice is equitable to not commenting on a blog that isn't one's own in a compensatory and compulsory manner because other responsibilities take precedence.

Funny then that you found time to make three other smarmy non-answer posts after you were asked to answer your own questions. So much for the "I was too busy" excuse. You IDiots can't go a single day without lying about something.

Design is a language.

Please elaborate on and support your assertion. Or are we only going to see more childish semantic games?

"There are a couple of million Roman Catholics who would fight you tooth and nail over that. If they can take time from their busy schedule bombing Planned Parenthood clinics and fighting same-sex marriages that is."

"Please elaborate on and support your assertion. Or are we only going to see more childish semantic games?"

Thanks for defending my honor,Smith,regardless of the motivation. Since Thorton said he did not mean that Catholics were bomb wielding fanatics, I figure that is truth. Then again I am not in a " nice conversation" like you guys. And being called stupid? Take a number.

Thanks for the definition,Smith. Design is a language? A method to communicate an idea? Or am I on the wrong track?

The designer's preferences are intrinsic to design, design is the elimination of alternate possibilities. There are practical as well as idiosyncratic reasons for the choices. Perhaps your definition of need is broad enough to encompass this so preference is redundant

In some regards. A good designer would put the need before the preference. It is, unfortunately, rare. Even so, multiple solutions are valid if the need is kept at the fore. It makes for a colorful world.

You are correct,but alas , if the detection of a design is the goal,by definition created by designer,possibly completely different from us, who greatly exceeds human capacity ,whose motivations and intentions are inscrutable, what options do you have? Just the claim that life is just too darn complex to have occurred, with our present knowledge, therefore design.

True. The same has been asked for many years regarding pieces of "art." We use high technology to uncover the masterful strokes of long-dead painters. Maybe their techniques weren't the same point of awe then as they are now.

Have you heard of Maurizio Seracini? He has spent 35 yrs trying to prove that there is a lost DaVinci fresco underneath another fresco in Florence. They have linked the black pigment used on the hidden fresco to the black pigment used by Da Vinci. There are still skeptics.